Deactivate a partner

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: it names the precise blast radius (all active links disabled) and explicitly states what is NOT destroyed (commissions and payouts remain intact), plus reversibility. It stops short of 5 by saying nothing about the confirm requirement or authorization needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the action and its primary effect front-loaded and the non-destructive guarantees following. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 6-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the outcome, the collateral effect, and reversibility well. It omits how the operation is confirmed (the confirm flag) and how errors are reported when neither partnerId nor tenantId is supplied, leaving those to the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail at all, and notably does not correct the schema's misleading partnerId text ('the ID of the partner to create a link for'), which is a copy-paste artifact from a sibling tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('deactivate the partner from your program') plus the concrete side effect of disabling active links, so the agent knows exactly what happens. It does not differentiate from the sibling ban_partner, which is the closest alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'You can reactivate them later if needed' implies this is the reversible/softer option, which is useful context for choosing it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no comparison to ban_partner or delete_partner-style siblings, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.